JUDGMENT - M.S. RATNAPARKHI, J.:---The orders passed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-8-1983 (Annexures 3, 4 and 5) promoting the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to Category No. 8 from Category No. 9 have been challenged in this writ petition. A mandate is sought from this Court directing the responding No. 1 to promote the petitioner in Category No. 8.

2. The fact giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:

The petitioner was working with the respondent No. 1 as a supervisor and his initial appointment dates bank to 1969. At that time, the respondent No. 1 was not in existence and it was the Nagpur District Land Mortgage Bank which was the entry appointing him. He was further promoted as supervisor in 1971 by the old Land Mortgage Bank. In 1973, the respondent no. 1---Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank was formulated by the statute and all the District Land Mortgage Banks were amalgamated with the respondent No. 1, so that with effect from the date of amalgamation the different cadres in the District Branch became the cards of the respondent No. 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he was working in a higher cadre of a supervisor, the persons who were junior to him (particularly the respondent Nos. 2 to 6) came to be promoted to Category No. 8, whereas he was never considered for promotion. According to him, this actions on the part of the Bank is not only arbitrary, but discriminatory too. He, therefore, wants the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to be quashed and a further mandate to the respondent No. 1 to promote him to Category No. 8. The respondent No. 1 by their reply opposed the claim. According to them the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were in Category No. 9 after the amalgamation of the District Units. In or about 1983, a general policy of promotion was declared by the respondent No. 1 and according to the General Policy, three years confidential records of the respective incumbents were to be examined and in case there was remark that he was not fit for promotion, his claim for promotion could not be considered at all. It is their contention that the petitioner earned such remark, and therefore, his claim was not at all considered. Other respondents did not put their appearance at all. It was also contended that the respondent No. 1 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore, no writ could lie against it.

3. Mr. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 strenuously urged before us that the respondent No. 1 was not a State within the meaning of section 10 and hence no writ of any kind could be issued against it. He urged before us that the respondent No. 1 is a corporate sole and governed by the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. This proposition does not appear to be correct, inasmuch as section 112 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act specifically states that there shall be a State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank for the State of Maharashtra. Thus, the respondent No. 1 is definitely a creation of the statute and it cannot beside merely as a corporate sole within the meaning of the Companies Act. Sub-section (2) and (3) of section 112 and the further provisions in section 112-A and 112-B prescribed the constitution of the Bank itself. Section 113 of the said Act appoints the registrar as a Trustee for the purpose of securing the fulfilment of the obligations of the State Government Bank to the holders of debentures issued by it. There are also further provisions which need not be gone in details at this stage. Enough to point out that the respondent No. 1 is creature of the statute and it is also regulated by the statute. It may be that the original entity may have its own Bye-laws and even the new entity (respondent No. 1) may have its Bye-laws, but that does not change the character of the entity as far as the substance is concerned. The respondent No. 1 remains a cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document